Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

* Thursday, June 04, 2015 11:18 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Paul, Thanks for the response. More specifically I’m interested in the SM side of the test, as we too are using the Cambium Antennas at the AP. However, at the SM side, I’d recommend a NLOS te

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

] *On Behalf Of *Ben Royer > *Sent:* Thursday, June 04, 2015 11:18 AM > > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using > > > > Paul, > > > > Thanks for the response. More specifically I’m interested in the SM side > of the test, as we t

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

: Thursday, June 04, 2015 11:18 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Paul, Thanks for the response. More specifically I’m interested in the SM side of the test, as we too are using the Cambium Antennas at the AP. However, at the SM side, I’d recommend a NLOS test

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

450 out performs the 320. Thank you, Ben Royer, Operations Manager Royell Communications, Inc. 217-965-3699 www.royell.net From: Paul McCall Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 8:30 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Ben, The testing was based on using the

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

hat rule set, for how long before you have to comply with > the new rules coming out? > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 9:51 PM > *To:* af > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using >

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

McCall Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:42 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using With or without…. Made like difference. Sometimes the reflector made no different and on occasion made it worse depending on the densities of the trees. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

, 2015 9:11 AM To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using What antenna are you using in your testing of the 450 vs. 320 NLOS? I’m just curious because this is an interesting report, as we have a network of around 2,500 320 customers, and we are

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using What antenna are you using in your testing of the 450 vs. 320 NLOS? I’m just curious because this is an interesting report, as we have a network of around 2,500 320 customers, and we are in the same position of looking for

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

Ben, The testing was based on using the standard Cambium antenna, respectively, for both platforms. Paul From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ben Royer Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:11 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using What antenna are you

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

7-965-3699 www.royell.net *From:* Paul McCall <mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:40 PM *To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using But, if you are using 320 for NLOS solutions, the 450 trade up means you’re going

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

Communications, Inc. 217-965-3699 www.royell.net From: Paul McCall Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:40 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using But, if you are using 320 for NLOS solutions, the 450 trade up means you’re going to lose customers since the 450 doesn’t do

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

OK, but under what rule set, for how long before you have to comply with the new rules coming out? From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 9:51 PM To: af Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using You can still add new 3.65 AP

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

Yes On 6/3/2015 8:16 PM, Jon Langeler wrote: Replacing UBNT with what? 450? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 3, 2015, at 8:08 PM, George Skorup > wrote: I don't buy the LTE NLOS pitch. It's too goddamn expensive to get good performance (3 or 4 4x4 sectors instead of a du

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

il the “next” thing comes to play with > the FCC rules?* > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy > /sarcasm > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:09 PM > > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using > >

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

Replacing UBNT with what? 450? Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 3, 2015, at 8:08 PM, George Skorup wrote: > > I don't buy the LTE NLOS pitch. It's too goddamn expensive to get good > performance (3 or 4 4x4 sectors instead of a dual omni or split 2x2 sectors) > to put 30, 40 or even 50 customers

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

I don't buy the LTE NLOS pitch. It's too goddamn expensive to get good performance (3 or 4 4x4 sectors instead of a dual omni or split 2x2 sectors) to put 30, 40 or even 50 customers on a site which is all we have in rural areas. We'll never make any money buying Telrad. I can put up 4 sectors

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

bject: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product? Are you expanding with it as far as towers go? Or, are you just adding SMs to what you already

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

problem. BW limited but works pretty well (*some might debate > that) > > > > *At this moment, can you add ANY new 3.65 AP locations (from any > manufacturer) or forced to wait until the “next” thing comes to play with > the FCC rules?* > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-bo

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

ne 03, 2015 5:09 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Don’t they have another WiMAX-to-450 tradeup going on? Kind of a 3650 MHz cash-for-clunkers program. From: That One Guy /sarcasm<mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:08 PM To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: Re:

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy /sarcasm Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:09 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

Don’t they have another WiMAX-to-450 tradeup going on? Kind of a 3650 MHz cash-for-clunkers program. From: That One Guy /sarcasm Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:08 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

We still use it. Tons of it. However, we are not doing any new builds or installing any new customers. Purely maintenance mode at this point. Hoping something better comes along that we can migrate to. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:08 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm < thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: > Im

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us 320

[AFMUG] 320 series - still using

I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product? Are you expanding with it as far as towers go? Or, are you just adding SMs to what you already have? Paul Paul McCall, Pres. PDMNet / Florid